For whom would you vote in 1972?

[DakotaHale]

Boll. Assume Wallace wasn't shot.

[vcczar]

It's hard for me to take this because: 

1. If I'm in a battleground state I vote Nixon in this situation against the pro-segregationist pres and neocon VP. 

2. If I'm not in a battleground state, I do a write in for George McGovern/Barbara Jordan

[DakotaHale]

31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It's hard for me to take this because: 

1. If I'm in a battleground state I vote Nixon in this situation against the pro-segregationist pres and neocon VP. 

2. If I'm not in a battleground state, I do a write in for George McGovern/Barbara Jordan

Neoprogressive technically. Probably @WVProgressives dream candidate I would wager. Or maybe not

[vcczar]

40 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

Neoprogressive technically.

If you're talking about Jackson, he's usually considered the model for a neocon, something like the godfather of neoconservative foreign policy. 

"Neoconservatism ... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War] ... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center ... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists."

The list above lists others, but Jackson is usually the inspiration for Cheney and others. Many had been Democrats who eventually left the Democrats over their peace platform. A lot of GW Bush followers had been Jackson fans. 

 

[WVProgressive]

1 hour ago, DakotaHale said:

Neoprogressive technically. Probably @WVProgressives dream candidate I would wager. Or maybe not

Honestly, yeah, pretty much lmao. Scoop is about as close to me politically as is possible in a country like America. Economically liberal, while maintaining a virtuous foreign, and domestic program, sad that that’s becoming more, and more rare these days.
 

But if you’re talking about Wallace then I disavow his racism, and think that his foreign policy views are half baked and stuck in the 19th century.

 

My ideal candidate would probably have a mix of Elizabeth Warren’s Economic and LGBTQ views, Pat Buchanan’s views on all other social issues, and John Bolton’s Foreign Policy views. Typing that out, I now realize that we are basically polar opposites, politically speaking, lmao.

[Pringles]

I love Henry Jackson. His foreign policy views are epic and his philosophy really resonates with  me. Had I lived back then I probably would’ve been a Truman Democrat. Supporting Democrats up until around 1952 for the most part. Like a lot of Democrats, I’d shift to the GOP. This is also around the time where Reagan begins becoming a Republican.

I would never vote for 1972 George Wallace though. 80s Wallace had disavowed racism and became a born-again Christian. Still wouldn’t vote for him nationally though. Even if Wallace qualifies as more “Conservative” I wouldn’t vote for him. There’s Wallace’s Conservatism and then there’s Jackson’s, Reagan’s, Nixon’s, Bush, etc. 

Richard Nixon did a lot of good things for the country before his resignation, and I wouldn’t want to squander it on the Trump of the 70s. Nixon would absolutely pounce him and it’d be glorious. 

[Zenobiyl]

Tough call, but I’d rather have a racist than a criminal in the White House

[DakotaHale]

8 hours ago, Zenobiyl said:

Tough call, but I’d rather have a racist than a criminal in the White House

More importantly, an insincere racist versus a very sincere criminal.

[vcczar]

Just now, DakotaHale said:

insincere racist

I'd guess there's a good change he was an insincere non-racist. 

[DakotaHale]

Just now, vcczar said:

I'd guess there's a good change he was an insincere non-racist. 

That too, if I understand you correctly. He truly is a very enigmatic character. Initially ran on one of the most progressive, liberal campaigns in Alabama history, denounced the Klan, was endorsed by the NAACP, and lost the Democratic primary by a single percent of the vote. The next election, he ran on a platform of segregation "today, tomorrow, forever" and law and order and won in a landslide. He also appointed more black government officials than any other Governor in Alabama history, and as a judge, black attorneys noted him for his fairness. After his governorship ended, he maintained that he was always a moderate on the segregation issue (mainly opposing forced integration, and even while governor he supported allowing states to integrate if they desired). I always found him very interesting. I don't know how sincere for sure his views on race were, but I don't think he was genuinely a major racist.

[vcczar]

Just now, DakotaHale said:

That too, if I understand you correctly. He truly is a very enigmatic character. Initially ran on one of the most progressive, liberal campaigns in Alabama history, denounced the Klan, was endorsed by the NAACP, and lost the Democratic primary by a single percent of the vote. The next election, he ran on a platform of segregation "today, tomorrow, forever" and law and order and won in a landslide. He also appointed more black government officials than any other Governor in Alabama history, and as a judge, black attorneys noted him for his fairness. After his governorship ended, he maintained that he was always a moderate on the segregation issue (mainly opposing forced integration, and even while governor he supported allowing states to integrate if they desired). I always found him very interesting. I don't know how sincere for sure his views on race were, but I don't think he was genuinely a major racist.

I think he had no real values, just sort of did stuff to meet his ambition, sort of like Trump in that regards. Populists tend to be either extremely puritanical in their beliefs or will do whatever gets them the most attention at any given time. 

[Pringles]

6 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

That too, if I understand you correctly. He truly is a very enigmatic character. Initially ran on one of the most progressive, liberal campaigns in Alabama history, denounced the Klan, was endorsed by the NAACP, and lost the Democratic primary by a single percent of the vote. The next election, he ran on a platform of segregation "today, tomorrow, forever" and law and order and won in a landslide. He also appointed more black government officials than any other Governor in Alabama history, and as a judge, black attorneys noted him for his fairness. After his governorship ended, he maintained that he was always a moderate on the segregation issue (mainly opposing forced integration, and even while governor he supported allowing states to integrate if they desired). I always found him very interesting. I don't know how sincere for sure his views on race were, but I don't think he was genuinely a major racist.

That’s the problem with supporting populists in general imo. They ride the wave of noise. No real beliefs. Though I think in the 80s once he became a born again Christian, he truly changed. Though I don’t think he would ever make good presidential material.